19 replies [Last post]
Templar-kun
Offline
Joined: 12/05/2017

I'm trying to think of better names for two types of "adjacent".

Let's say I have a battle game, and all unit's have two ranges. How should I name them? Something short and easy, that can be put on a card as a key word to avoid confusion. "Orthogonal adjacent" and "diagonally adjacent" is way to bulky.

Example of what I'm looking for: "Deal damage to all /near/ units"

SOLVED:

I Will Never Gr... wrote:
X3M wrote:

Other contenders:
Close range/Long range
Range 1/Range 2
Cross/Plus
Box/Square

Can't remember any game that uses two ranges to check...

Juzek
Offline
Joined: 06/19/2017
There is a lot of the

There is a lot of the population that doesn't know the word "orthogonal". In my instructions, I defined a new term for "group" and that it was "connected squares (not diagonal)" and it seemed to work well enough. It remains my most difficult to understand concept in my game.

I would almost rather use hexes and count steps rather than have to explain it again.

I am an interested party of someone else has a good solution to this.

pelle
Offline
Joined: 08/11/2008
I think a rulebook I read

I think a rulebook I read recently used "adjacent" and "near" and it had me confused at first before reading the fine-print and realizing it was actually defined quite clearly. It is just easy to accidentally skip over definitions like that when you have played many games and think you already know everything (heh).

I think ideally the game only need one kind of "adjacent", or can just use ranges instead in a uniform and simple to remember way (e.g. that ranges are Manhattan distance, no diagonals used when counting, meaning that the orthogonal adjacent squares are at range 1, the diagonal adjacent at range 2). Makes everything simpler to understand, explain, and remember.

Templar-kun
Offline
Joined: 12/05/2017
Ha, it seems this question is

Ha, it seems this question is not as easy as I hoped :)
While I see that range 1 and range 2 is a easy solution, I feel that it just doesn't sound as good when you have only...2 ranges. Hmm.., am I wrong?

At the present I'm using adjacent and near. So I'm glad I'm not the only one :)
Looking for more answers with variants!

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
What do you see?

I see a Cross/Plus and a Box/Square.

questccg
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011

The Plus "+" could be "NEXT TO", Diagonals "x" could be "ADJACENT" and if you want ALL around it could be "MELEE" (as opposed to RANGE). I am using something similar in my own "Crystal Heroes" (CH) but I am also using the cards themselves to indicate what attacks are permissible. Here's a sample (I know I've shared it before -- just to explain):

On the bottom left-hand corner is the "Attack Pattern". That's how my Game Tiles are designed to allow the players to SEE what kind of attacks are permissible. This is just an example, the TERMS I cited before may be more appropriate even though I too "struggle" with defining the "positions". The table is easier to visualize and comprehend versus verbose language.

lewpuls
Offline
Joined: 04/04/2009
Sufficient for me to say

Sufficient for me to say "orthogonal" (up, down, and sideways) and "diagonal" (kitty-corner). Most people don't know orthogonal, most know diagonal.

Templar-kun
Offline
Joined: 12/05/2017
X3M wrote:I see a Cross/Plus

X3M wrote:
I see a Cross/Plus and a Box/Square.

Probably the easiest for understanding. But... doesn't sound sexy :)
"Deal damage to all units in Box range" yikes

questccg wrote:
The Plus "+" could be "NEXT TO", Diagonals "x" could be "ADJACENT" and if you want ALL around it could be "MELEE" (as opposed to RANGE). I am using something similar in my own "Crystal Heroes" (CH) but I am also using the cards themselves to indicate what attacks are permissible. Here's a sample (I know I've shared it before -- just to explain):

On the bottom left-hand corner is the "Attack Pattern". That's how my Game Tiles are designed to allow the players to SEE what kind of attacks are permissible. This is just an example, the TERMS I cited before may be more appropriate even though I too "struggle" with defining the "positions". The table is easier to visualize and comprehend versus verbose language.

I agree, having an "Attack Pattern" is the best way. But it's doesn't make sense in my situation, when I only need 2 patterns (and an actual keyword for it).

lewpuls wrote:
Sufficient for me to say "orthogonal" (up, down, and sideways) and "diagonal" (kitty-corner). Most people don't know orthogonal, most know diagonal.

Yes, but I need a word for orthogonal+diagonal combined.

Templar-kun
Offline
Joined: 12/05/2017
I included all suggestions in

I included all suggestions in the main post. But please post more ideas.

questccg
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Actually you only need ONE "keyword"

Templar-kun wrote:
... But it's doesn't make sense in my situation, when I only need 2 patterns (and an actual keyword for it).

In the case of "around" the player, you don't really need a keyword. Something like "Target Any" (makes a lot of sense, no?) since this means any position around the center... (Hear me out -- the idea is ALL versus some)

And then you NEED a Keyword for "plus" ("+") ... I'm not solving the problem just re-defining it so you can get BETTER suggestions!

So "Target Any" is all around. And "Plus" someone has to come up with something clever... IDK. This is 50% of the problem solved. You only need ONE (1) Keyword that relates to the "Plus" positions.

Update #1: "Target Next to" could be the "Plus" positions. And so my suggestion would be "Target Any" or "Target Next to". This sounds logical to me... IF you need to actually "write it down" somewhere.

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013

Templar-kun
Offline
Joined: 12/05/2017
questccg wrote:Templar-kun

questccg wrote:
Templar-kun wrote:
... But it's doesn't make sense in my situation, when I only need 2 patterns (and an actual keyword for it).

In the case of "around" the player, you don't really need a keyword. Something like "Target Any" (makes a lot of sense, no?) since this means any position around the center... (Hear me out -- the idea is ALL versus some)

And then you NEED a Keyword for "plus" ("+") ... I'm not solving the problem just re-defining it so you can get BETTER suggestions!

So "Target Any" is all around. And "Plus" someone has to come up with something clever... IDK. This is 50% of the problem solved. You only need ONE (1) Keyword that relates to the "Plus" positions.

Update #1: "Target Next to" could be the "Plus" positions. And so my suggestion would be "Target Any" or "Target Next to". This sounds logical to me... IF you need to actually "write it down" somewhere.

This could be the best solution, but unfortunately, I already use "target any" for other area effects...
My all units have 2 range. But some events uses "target any" (that don't need to be defined as a range) to target any (like, really any) tile on the board.

X3M wrote:

"Deal damage to all /adjacent plus diagonal/ units". I guess...

I Will Never Gr...
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2015
For orthogonal + diagonal,

For orthogonal + diagonal, would "Surrounding" work?

As long as you defined these (with images preferably) early in the rules, you should be good to go.

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
hmm

Clearly the "box" needs one word.

questccg
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
I agree with James

I Will Never Grow Up Gaming wrote:
For orthogonal + diagonal, would "Surrounding" work?

As long as you defined these (with images preferably) early in the rules, you should be good to go.

• "Target Orthogonal" (the Plus "+")
• "Target Diagonal" (the Cross "x")
• "Target Surrounding" (the Box around)

Sounds resolved to me... @IWNGUG seemed to present the clearest solution and/or terms.

I think this is the BEST possible input to your issue... Just supporting @IWNGUG ideas/terms. Cheers!

Note #1: I just wanted to give you text samples of this terminology and how it would look like:

• Deal damage to surrounding units
• Deal damage to orthogonal units
• Deal damage to diagonal units

Sounds all beautiful and resolved to me...

Templar-kun
Offline
Joined: 12/05/2017
I Will Never Grow Up Gaming

I Will Never Grow Up Gaming wrote:
For orthogonal + diagonal, would "Surrounding" work?

As long as you defined these (with images preferably) early in the rules, you should be good to go.

A simple word that just slipped my mind. Thank you!

X3M wrote:
Clearly the "box" needs one word.

"Around" is a great one too, thanks!

It sound so easy now, both "Surrounding" and "Around" are exactly what I was searching for, but for some reason my mind gone blank and couldn't remember simple words. So, thank you everyone!
This topic is solved. I put answers on a main post for everyone that is struggling with the same problem :)

lewpuls
Offline
Joined: 04/04/2009

I use "adjacent orthogonally or diagonally". No new word needed (once you've clarified orthogonal and diagonal), and no ambiguity.

Or I define adjacent as orthogonally or diagonally and then just use adjacent.

pelle
Offline
Joined: 08/11/2008
Would take some effort to

Would take some effort to remember that around and surrounding are two different things, and then remember which one is which. Maybe for a native English-speaker the difference is clearer, but lewpul's suggestion makes a lot of sense to me.

Templar-kun
Offline
Joined: 12/05/2017

lewpuls wrote:
I use "adjacent orthogonally or diagonally". No new word needed (once you've clarified orthogonal and diagonal), and no ambiguity.

Or I define adjacent as orthogonally or diagonally and then just use adjacent.

The challenge is to put those on cards with limited space. "Adjacent orthogonally" and "adjacent orthogonally and diagonally" is long or/and confusing (because I need two of them).

pelle wrote:
Would take some effort to remember that around and surrounding are two different things, and then remember which one is which. Maybe for a native English-speaker the difference is clearer, but lewpul's suggestion makes a lot of sense to me.

But it's not "surrounding" and "around". The solution was: "surrounding" (or "around" as a alternative) and "adjacent"

pelle
Offline
Joined: 08/11/2008
Templar-kun wrote: pelle

Templar-kun wrote:

pelle wrote:
Would take some effort to remember that around and surrounding are two different things, and then remember which one is which. Maybe for a native English-speaker the difference is clearer, but lewpul's suggestion makes a lot of sense to me.

But it's not "surrounding" and "around". The solution was: "surrounding" (or "around" as a alternative) and "adjacent"

Sorry, I misread, when you said in bold "both "Surrounding" and "Around" are exactly what I was searching for" I read that as if you made up your mind to use those two words for the two different things.

Then I would complain about using two words for the same thing. Just decide on one and use that. :)

But I still would not intuitively immediately understand which one is adjacent and which one is around/surrounding. Maybe if I had to guess I would say that surrounding has to be all nine squares. Around sounds more vague.

I just remembered in Advanced Squad Leader they use "Adjacent" and "ADJACENT" for two different types of being adjacent. I do not even remember what the difference is in that game, since it has a hex grid, so it is never a question of being diagonally adjacent. I think there is some subtle difference when units are in different Locations in the same hex or something like that... Very confusing anyway, like the three or more different types of moving/movement that exists in that game.